Yes, I don't envy the European system. They certainly do have their work cut out for them. It is going to take something approximating complete integration, and the poorer nations will need to remain politically patient. The good news is however, at least in Greece, to the best of my knowledge, that Greeks do not want to leave the Euro. In Germany, I think the current administration has come to the realization that going forward further integration and growth will be unavoidable. What the German population wants is of little concern to me. When I envisioned a United Europe, 25 years ago, I pictured a more integrated Europe as well, but then again, I come from a multi-cultural family. However, this financial crisis has caused most Greeks great difficulty. Luckily I am removed enough from the situation to remain objective. And yet, most Greeks by a large majority want to remain in the Euro. It speaks to their character as a nation, which is a lot more then I can say for some blogging here. Really, how many Zorbas do we need on this site. Granted, we don't have to use our real names here, but maybe we should, if people begin to feel free to make a mockery of the forum by switching and duplicating monikers, enough said. I am here to express sound economic thought, nothing more, nothing less.

Only the first post below is mine. Somebody was able to duplicate my moniker. Very strange, who would even care to bother? My mailbox is filled with strange comments form Zorbas898 and zorbas989. Had to turn off my response alert button. Mission accomplished, disclaimers posted, will be keeping the moniker though. Will the real Zorbas, zprbas please stand up. No, not you wanker, the other guy...laughs

I understand Charlemagne's 'very British' concerns, and I believe Britain had always an ally in Germany, and vice versa, in keeping 'dirigisme' in the EU at bay.

Merkel still courts Cameron and makes sure that Britain doesn't become too isolated within the 'club'. But the requirements of the Euro crisis created a completely new ‘desideratum scenario’. Since it seems that an abandonment of the common currency isn't seen as a valid option for a majority of the member states, there is only a move 'onwards' possible; also for 'reluctant' Germany this is a fact (if a majority of the German voters like it or not).

The hope (of some circles in Britain) that Germany will abandon the Euro is therefore in vain. Under no circumstances, a German government will enter the history books as "the country that destroyed the Euro". On the other hand, no German government can hand a blank check to the currency project without being severely punished at the next election. Merkel knows that very well, and this results in her ‘walking the tightrope’.

Merkel, as German chancellors before her, would like to have Britain at her side, but the questions this common currency triggers now have to be solved by euro-participants only, since they are the ones now carrying the 'direct bill' ... or one day. (The bill Britain will pay is more indirectly, via potentially losing access to her, by far, biggest financial market).

This is why Britain can't have a say on matters concerning the Euro, because it's just NOT Britain's immediate concern. And this odd situation automatically creates the "In-Out" situation described by Charlemagne.

Britain's influence in Europe will dwindle and Britain will have to swallow this if it doesn't want to jeopardize its role as the EU's financial center. I guess that Frankfurt, Paris and Milan would be more than happy to lure the trillions (the London City's EU-dealings account for) onto their own shores.

Germany is pushed by France and France's southern allies to throw her full weight behind the common currency. However, a larger financial commitment always also means a larger "say" and control. Most Southern Euro countries want “the one without the other”. This is not possible, just as little as one cant' have his cake and eat it too. More euro commitment of current and future German taxpayers will automatically result in more control over the issue by these very same taxpayers.

Any long-term commitment will need to be democratically justified by German Constitutional law, in full accordance to the respective share of such commitment. This is why Germany's influence in Europe will increase dramatically, parallel to the country's huge commitment towards the euro project . . . And at the same time Britain's influence will dwindle, in accordance to the diminishing size of her commitment towards the euro project. This is a very normal process and has absolutely nothing to do with 'not liking' Britain or the attempt to 'isolate' Britain. At least German politicians would rather have it the other way around.

Charlemagne wrote:Britain cannot be ignored. ....The British are building (the Euro wall) from the outside.”

Any European of common sense, particularly those like me so strongly linked to England, would love Britain never to be ignored.

Unfortunately, today's opinion makers in England are doing their best for Britain not only to be ignored but, much worse, to be detested.

A couple o' weeks ago I reminded today's Britons of the disaster of Isandlwana: very likely the most humiliating defeat of one Britain's institution I most respect: their Armed Forces.

As that post of mine "danced" between being deleted or not (it is still in my post history but no longer on the thread that was abruptly closed) there's the gist of it:

In the late 1870's, the Zulu war occurred: all historians I know chime in with the BBC quick recent assessment of the Isandlwana defeat: "17 Feb 2011 – A dangerous mix of self-confidence and contempt for their foes infected many in the British Army during the Zulu War. This misjudgement led to... the defeat of Isandlwana".

Fortunately a few hours later, a few miles downriver, a British small force, commanded by a doctor and an engineer, heroically defeated a far more numerous Zulu force. Rorke's Drift the place was called.

The lesson has apparently been lost: when Briton underestimate the problems they face and overestimate their own powers they are ignominiously defeated as the "professional" Army commanders at Isandlwana did.

When commonsensical non fighting personnel take all precautions and abide by all relevant rules of the game, a glorious victory ensues.

Please, Britons of today: get rid of all conceited incompetent "professionals" and get commonsensical modest and competent people to address your challenges.

Note: this has nothing to do with party politics; I refuse to enter that subject in a country I'm no longer a taxpayer of.

This is addressed at financiers, journalists, managers of financial agents and public opinion in general.

Given that it is the so called 'professionals' that lied to the British public in the 1975 referendum, lied about the Commonwealth having a small share of global wealth (as then, it is now, larger than the european projects).

The majority of the British Chambers of Commerce begrudge membership of the european project, and vie for a scaling back to the single market, which would mean that the only other option is to leave.

IT is not a question of overconfidence, as the EU looks to become an all encompassing federal state where 'regions' replace 'nations', it is about whether to be 'something' or 'nothing'.

As, apart from calling somebody "liars", a small sin compared to your usual frantic and insulting hotheadedness, you are just stating opinions, I shall reply.

I'm not very sure of the point you wish to make but I agree that one of the possible consequences of the EU is that the importance of the state-nation will dwindle and that of the regions will increase.

That has been fully accepted since the sixties or seventies if I remember well.

Whether it is good or bad, I don't know. Maybe in two hundred years' time we shall know.

For the time being, it is just a fact that globalization and a freer movement of people are promoting as effectively as the EU.

Indirectly, you seem to insist that the UK should leave the European Union.

For a long time I did not have an objection against it; just against the permanent hesitation of Britain: never fully in (just a free trade area, luv!); never fully out.

It was Britons' right but very harmful to others as hesitations always are.

But I was always sorry to see Britain go.

I believe I'm beginning to change my opinion: the acrimony between Britain on one side and most of other EU countries, mostly EZ ones, seems to be leading to the situation that all concerned would benefit from Britain leaving the EU.

The silly Euro war, in which so many Britons joined as attackers has not helped, either.

A puzzle for me: attacking a currency that's nothing but a technical tool that never last long (except only the name) and that, if destroyed, would harm the City more any country, I could never understand.

But it was the choice of most Britons despite the obvious fact that it would severely embitter the relations with other EU countries.

So very reluctantly, I'm being driven to the acceptance that it would be better for all if Britain leaves the EU.

Rather a pity but that's like marriages: when love dies out - or never existed - better a divorce than the misery of life in common.

Although I have forfeited my right to have an opinion for Britain to leave or stay, I'm almost at the point of supporting your efforts for Britain to leave.

It is of note the Heath, the media and various other groups were less than truthful about what was being signed up to. It is also of note that those running the 'european project' paid the British media and others vast sums of money to support their propaganda. This is all verifiable.

While I support moving back to something like what the UK populace was told it signing up to, this is not, nor has ever been on offer.

Exit, sooner rather than later, is (in my humble opinion) the best move for all involved. If those looking at 'closer union' are pissed off, then they have no one to blame other than those that spread the original propaganda that it would not happen (or at very least the UK would be able to side step it).

The UK-s interest is to stay in the single market (trade, to keep the role of London as a financial centre etc. - there are a number of analyses how much this benefited the UK). There is a lot of harmonisation which enables smooth operation of the single market. If you have ever traded with partners who have a different currency, you must also be aware of exchange rate risk and the cost of hedging it.

The UK has a different currency, it is not a member of the 'single currency', and the 'single currency' area is already taking illegal action with the single market (and WTO) by shutting out non-single currency nations from clearing stock.

It is one of two members that have a permanent 'opt-out' from ever having to join.

What is the EU going to do to move the City? It has not the expertise, and it would take decades to get even close. You think that the UK would sit still? More like the EU would be humiliated in the WTO.

If I remember well, I had the chance to meet Ted Heath twice at some twenty years or more interval.

Not while he was PM.

He didn't strike me as someone who was ever less than truthful, but of course, he was a politician.

He was far more interesting as a yachtsman and Symphony Orchestra conductor, both our common interests. Well, he really thought a yacht was better than a fast dinghy, I exactly the opposite.

Besides, he was almost of professional quality as an Orchestra conductor and I hardly know a musical note.

As for money being spent on convincing British voters to support the EU, that's news to me.

I can't envisage any continental country interested in Britain joining the EU (remember de Gaulle) and I don't think the Guardian/Observer crowd, the only ones openly in favour of joining, having the resources for that.

But, of course, any of us has his own sources.

I think I'll leave this subject now as I doubt anyone will be much pissed off for Britain leaving, except perhaps a number of Britons.

Three years later, when the foul and repulsive Ted Heath got into Number 10 Downing Street he began negotiations again, and a treaty was agreed in January 1972. This was the infamous treaty in which the treasonous Heath lied to everyone and betrayed his country.

In the months prior to Heath's betrayal the British public had not been convinced that they wanted their country to enter the EEC. Many, perhaps, simply didn't trust the politicians' claims that membership would be merely a commercial convenience. One opinion poll in early 1971 showed that the British people were against entry by the astonishing ratio of three to one. This opposition came despite the expenditure by the European Commission Information Service of around £10 million on trying to persuade opinion formers of the benefits of membership of the EEC.

THE Tories' 1970 General Election manifesto promised that Britain would once again negotiate entry to what was by then known as the European Economic Community. TED HEATH did more than negotiate: he took us in. Having said that Britain would join only 'with the full-hearted consent of the British parliament and people', Heath pressed on with entry even though the enabling Bill passed its second reading by only eight votes in the Commons.

The people were never consulted. Heath didn't even tell his Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, that signing the Treaty of Brussels to secure our accession committed us one day to joining a single currency - Sir Alec forced Heath to admit this afterwards.

Heath also said that the common agricultural and fisheries polices would have no adverse effect on our farmers or fishermen. The consistent dwindling of our fleet since 1973 was a direct result of his policy and contrary to what he had promised.

1975

HAROLD WILSON'S victory at the two 1974 General Elections was partly won on a promise to renegotiate the expensive terms of Britain's membership of the EEC, and to have a referendum on whether to stay in. Though he painted the concessions he had won from Brussels as a great improvement, they were so inadequate that Mrs Thatcher had to go back to Europe to demand, and win, a far larger rebate.

Two pamphlets saying the deal was brilliant were sent to every household at the June 1975 referendum. They also protested that there would be no further sacrifices of sovereignty. Again, such promises were in direct contravention of the Treaty of Rome"

"What is the EU going to do to move the City? It has not the expertise, and it would take decades to get even close"

Complacency killed the cat. The City's prominence stems not from exalted expertise, which is easily bought and moved anyway; it stems from its propitious time-zone location, mid-way between the real financial steam furnaces, Asia and the US, enabling it to link both markets in real time. I can safely wager that this hurdle will be overcome in a matter of years, decades at most.

Humiliate the EU in the WTO, humiliate the EU in the UN: my, don't we have grand plans for the Empire.

Common sense would agree with Charlemagne description, except for one thing : the updated list of the 5 more influential EU countries (the 5 majors) to date : Germany, France, Italy, Spain and ... Poland . UK has now drifted in a new category of its own : probably its greatest diplomatic blunder since the early fifties.
Its only chance is to come back within one year with a sensible and structured counter-proposal for a new "EU compact" ("eufreshstart") limiting the scope of obligations and solidarity of member states vis à vis the EU and repatriating most competences.
Such a proposal would put integration forces on the defensive, might seduce several other member states and, in the end, prevent any federal leap forward ...this time again.
It might well be the most probable scenario - in particular if pro-federal member states as Germany remain unable to put concrete integrationist proposals (ie. Treaty revisions) on the table. JGG

"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" Curchill
The United Kingdom is Today`s Russia. UK positions on the Euro Crisis, are, in fact, "a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." What do british politicians believe in? A stronger Europe? A weaker Europe? Do they agree with the idea of creating the "United States of Europe"? Do they think that the end of the European Union is inevitable? Do they prefer to stay out of the European Union? If this hypothetical question was to be asked to David Cameron: Do You think the UK should leave the European Union?, He would answer (like Francis Urquhart, "his collegue" in Office) "You might very well think that; I couldn´t possible comment."
I do not agree with UK`S position, but I respect UK´s direct and strict policy, after all, to recall a british expression, "honesty is the best policy".
On negotiations. perhaps we should take a clue from "Roger Fisher", athor of the method of principled negotation (negotiation on merits), developed at the Harvard Negotation Project, and create our own best alternative to a negotation agreement (batna). What is the best alternative for Europe? Letting aside "blaming issues", no keeping score of who did what to whom. What is the best way? I believe the end of the European Union, the end of the Euro is not a solution. I still think, despite the crisis, that the European Union is the best politial idea (concept) that ever existed. Don´t throw out the baby with the bath water (" Das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten.")

My initial position is that the UK is right to seek to 'repatriate' powers as others 'integrate', both side getting what they want. This however seems to get a very hostile reaction, so the UK is better of leaving, as others are looking to 'circumvent' treaties.

The masters in Brussels want a 'federation', so the move to give them what they want is a pragmatic leaving present, that would be doing the UK and the rest of the world a favour. No more Germany et al, only the EU sitting in the international halls of power.

You may as well get used to it, it is the end goal of the EU either way.

A common representation may end up being one of the many outcomes of effective integration. And whatever form it takes, it can only be a vast improvement on the engineered Ashton nonentity.

However, by the time the issue arises, you'll be completely out of the game. Get used to it. Just look at the way the US are handling strategic technology transfers (F35 JSF). From more than equal partners to rib-kicked vassals, a move which obviously suits your deepest cravings.

The UN rums by majority vote... You think that others are going to allow the EU to have extra seats when it is a 'federation'? I think not, I think that the UK could get the support to have membership removed so that only one representative of the EU had a seat.

What does the UN decide by majority vote? The assembly has practically no power. The Security council takes all meaningful decisions and there the membership is totally different, if one non-permanent member is from the EU, there would be no second country from the EU voted in (the UK and France are permanent members who have veto rights).

France, Germany et al are all going to be one big federation. France will be nothing more than a region, and can you name all the regions of all the EU countries off the top of your head? Saying you're from 'France' would be like saying you're from Normandy, no one will care.

In the end, it is all about the money. And to eat your cake and eat at the same time, mostly.

Nobody wants to cede more power, the right to collect taxes, or else to Brussels (at least not as long as it is as undemocratic as it is currently). And banks all over are bust, inside the EZ and outside, to a lesser or bigger extent. (not so visible as long as mark to make believe is so popular and tolerated by regulators, EZB and auditors)

The northerners do not want to bail out the southern banks, thus the German reluctance to allow supervision of her saving banks - they own a very-well funded deposit scheme coveted by Spain and others to bail them out, further reluctance is certainly due to questionable state of saving banks balance sheets). Same goes for eurobonds or other forms recently launched by Mrs. Rompey Pompey, where the money leaves through the backdoor without any control. The periphery & Co want to max out the core's credit card a little bit longer, by whatever disguise. And Angie likes to be fleeced, for some elusive reason.

So the South wants money without power transfer, the North wants the transfer of power first. And the Brits? One often has the impression that their membership was always aimed to allow control from the inside, a feat becoming more impossible due to the autocratic dictatorial demeanour of unelected Brussels administrators.

The centrifugal powers of this concoction are considerable, the will to compromise negligible – there is no win-win solution. Armageddon will ensue as soon as the North stops to pretend to fund the adventure, at which point the Euro will not be only thing ceasing to exist. Roughly two years ago, I still thought we could save the EU despite getting rid of the Euro – something hard to imagine now, given the missing vision going forward.

Just because EU democracy is more complex and you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is less democratic.

In all fairness, it is more democratic than the UK, but only as democratic as it's members. That may sound like a contradiction, but I assure you it is not.

Democracy today has failed, it's a competition of manipulation and lies. The best deceivers get elected and they do nothing. However.

In the UK the parliament has all the power, legislative power and executive power. This means that a majority, as long as such is achieved, can do ANYTHING the next 4 years. This is unfortunately the case in most democracies. However, in the UK it is even worse. You have a winner takes all model, which makes sure small parties never have a chance, that 5% of the votes mean nothing and have no say. It also means that a party with 23% of the votes can get only 8% of the voice while a party with 36% of the votes can have 47% of the voice.

Not very democratic? Like all democracies, quite flawed. But the point was European democracy, which of all democracies in the world are by far the MOST democratic, especially if you, unlike me, are of the belief that democracies are democratic.

The EU is a collection of democracies, and only when ALL those democracies, not a majority, but ALL those democracies agree will there be a common policy. In addition, the European institutions are set up in such a way that no one has legislative AND executive power. In Europe, EVERYTHING has to be approved by the parliament. The commission can ONLY suggest change (which is often refused by parliament or the member states). The member states can ONLY set an agenda and has to make the final approvement.

In Europe, nothing happens with majority tyrrany. In Europe it always have to be a full agreement or total consensus. EVERYONE has to agree, ALWAYS. This makes sure policies are only policies that enjoy TOTAL popularity. In the UK the majority can do whatever they want and force through change.

Ooh, and you have exerienced the power of total agreement many times, because the UK has several times rejected European policies, even though everyone else agreed. So the UK never took part in those while the rest wanted to make their own agreement. This means NOTHING is forced on any country. In the UK, most policies are forced onto everyone, as long as there is a majority, even if that majority is 50.1%.

So, perhaps in talking about democracy, you should fight for it where it counts. In your own country.

If the treaty includes or effects the UK, then a referendum will be the 'legal' and 'automatic' response, with rejection the likely outcome. Many on these isles welcome the chance to stick two fingers up to Brussels, which is something continentals will have to consider.

This treaty is basically to fix the mess created by the original treaty that created the single currency in the first place, not a British problem, a continental one.

One more, very important thing: when the entire Europe was borrowing money from banks like there's no tomorrow Poland had a very clever and prudent finance Minister at the time, a fellow named Leszek Balcerowicz, and he did his utmost to cool down the economy in Poland, because he saw that Polish economy at that time (Jerzy Buzek government, 1998-2002) was overheated. At the same time most other countries in Europe were borrowing like crazy, thus contributing to this huge, huge financial crisis which the Eurozone is in now. WHY should Poland participate in bailing out banks when it was other countries which were borrowing like there's no tomorrow at the time? Poland was cooling down its economy at the turn of the millenia, so Poland is not to blame for the current crisis! Poland has no obligation and it shouldn't pay for the debts of others.

"Poland is keener to be in ..."
Poland is very keen to maintain its own currency, the Złoty, or PLN. In the beginning of 1990 milions of Poles underwent a very drastic financial transformation which was extremely painful for us, and we are not going to give up our national currency so easily, please forget about this very notion. God forbid that some political forces in Poland even dared to impose such arbitrary decision to accept the euro and get rid of our Polish national currency. Sorry for being a bit emotional, but one just can't arbitrarily impose euro on Poles, no way! Poles will surely reject the euro in a nationwide referendum on this issue, I think that everyone is aware of this (that's probably why they are so silent in Polish media about the referendum now, but this tactics will prove to be useless, people will sooner or later realize that the euro is not a good business for Poland). To impose euro on Poles, to act against the will of 35 millions of people would be a huge, huge mistake: suppose they introduced euro in Poland by force, millions of Poles suffered as a result because of higher prices, got angry, etc. They won't go to the street because of this, no, but they will become even more suspicious, even more against the government, those leaders who will be responsible for euro introduction in Poland will be completely erased from the political scene once and for all, and some new, strange political parties may come into existence in Poland (guess what such new parties in Poland will start to be demanding? - the return of złoty, of course!).

Poland has a Constitution which explicitly says that 'złoty' is the only legal currency on the territory of the Republic of Poland - it seems very strange to me that you are unaware of this simple fact! What's more, Poland is a democratic country and its citizens are used to be asked for their opinion about such historic decisions in nationwide referendums - do you really think that you can just pick up all the 'złotys' from the market in Poland and replace it/them with the euro and not ask the Poles for their permission to do so? It really seems to me that you are just joking or otherwise I would have to say that you know nothing about the democratic procedures in a democratic country (you're just joking, aren't you?).

First of all: Poland can't have accepted the single currency for a very obvious reason, namely its Constitution doesn't allow its leaders to accept it! In the Constitution of the Republic of Poland we read:
Article 227: “The central bank of the State shall be the National Bank of Poland. It shall have the EXCLUSIVE right to issue money as well as to formulate and implement monetary policy. The National Bank of Poland shall be responsible for the value of POLISH CURRENCY” ('Polish currency', and not European currency!)
Article 125: “A nationwide referendum may be held in respect of matters of PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE to the STATE” (just don’t try to persuade me that the country's currency is not a matter of particular importance to the State!).
Even you may clearly now see that if some of our "Polish comrades" in the EU (they call themselves "comrades" in Brussels, but hide this fact in Poland because if they told in Poland that they use the word "comrade" in the EU, the Poles will surely eat them up out of fury) agreed to join the single currency, then their promise to accept euro is simply null and void, and those who promised to introduce single currency in Poland just simply broke the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (sic).

the currency of Montenegro is EURO.
As long as the constitution does not say Zloty,the Polish currency can be whatever.
And do not mix the things.
That article is in every democratic constitution and serves to ensure the independence of the Monetary policy from the government.
That is different from ensuring that Poland has a different currency from some other neighbor.

I'm not into any troublesome exercise of defending Polish currency, but let me notice one very flagrantly visible thing: in 2004 Poland was enthusiastic about EURO and it was the EU that was reluctant, constantly mumbling something about some RM2 requirements unfulfilled by Poland, which prevented Poland from being able to get the EURO back then, whereas now it is Poland which is reluctant and Brussels which is overenthusiastic about the idea of "giving" the Poles the EURO in place of Złoty. WHAT MADE THE EU SO PANICKY? - more and more people in Poland are asking this simple but how uneasy from the Brussel's point of perpective, question.

The Constitution of the Republic of Poland is the highest legal document in Poland upon which all the other law is based. It does matter, and even greatly, what The Constitution says!
Poles were eager to join the single currency 8 years ago but then the single currency didn't simply want to come to Poland, there were constant obstacles created in Brussels so as to inhibit this process. Suddenly, a few years ago, the EU strategy (or maybe just merely tactics?) changed, and suddenly it is the Brussels which became so desperately desirous that Poland has to have the EURO. I look at your last reply to my comment, Cutters, and you know what? You evidently seem to be devoid of any logical arguments, and I can see that you are sort of desperate and panicky about this obligation to give up sovereignty, join or leave the project, living a lie, etc. - what kind of arguments are these?

Read the Polish document on joining the EU, it will make it quite clear what I am saying. Poland will have to join the single currency, it has already signed up to that happening, and you may not get a choice of when (as it is not a question of 'if') that happens.

As an example, look at the British refusal to get involved in further integration and the fallout from that. Poland will get just such a ride, if not harsher.

Only two countries in the EU have an 'opt out' of the single currency, Poland is not one of them.

Dear Cutters, I read a document of a much, much higher importance for Poland, namely the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, if whatever is written in the Polish document on joining the EU and is in contradiction to the Constitution, then this document should be considered null and void, not the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which was accepted in a nationwide referendum. Who in Poland agreed to join the euro currency and when was it? Please don't threaten us, the Poles, of harsh consequences if we don't accept the euro, because we in Poland know what enormous difficulties Spain now has because of having the euro; had the Spanish had the peso they would have devalued it a little bit and there wouldn't have been a problem for their economy, tourists would have come back and agricultural products would have been competitive again. We in Poland know the price of accepting the euro, so please don't mumble something that Poland has to join the euro because if it doesn't there would be the end of the world for us (your threats are rather infantile). Poland's situation is completely different than Britain's.

You are mistaken. International treaties have precedence over any internal document (imagine someone signing a contract with you to pay you for a delivery and then citing the company statutes which says they are not allowed to pay to people whose name starts with a "W".
The reason of the Greek problem - and to some extend the those of the other Mediterranean countries in the EZ - comes from the fact that they did not fulfil the conditions. The conditions which are known since the Maastricht treaty, not simply set individually and haphazardly for Poland.
Poland also signed with accession that it will fulfil these conditions and enter the EZ. The question is "when".
It is a "nice" wax for governments not to fulfil the conditions and thus delay their entry. The conditions, however, are plain common sense: low government deficit and indebtedness, reasonable inflation and long-term interest rates and a certain stability of the exchange rate. If a country does not have these, its citizens and companies suffer while its politicians may thrive. So choose.

"Poland also signed with accession that it will fulfil these conditions and enter the EZ. The question is "when".
OK, but how many years ago was it? In 2002 or 2004? Many things have changed since that time. Imagine that it is nice and hot summer's day and someone comes to you with a paper asking you to sign it and on the paper it is written that you commit yourself to wearing the sandals on your bare feet each time they might want you to do it (please remember that the EU vascilated enormously whether to accept or not to accept Poland into the eurozone back then in 2004, it was we, the Poles who were kindly asking and they were devising various obstacles). You look around, fine, no problem, I can wear the sandals because it's hot so I sign the paper for you because you want it and I am a European like you so I want to be friends with you (Poland didn't care much about it anyway because the EU itself didn't want Poland to enter the EZ anyway). Now they wait for the winter and during the most extreme frost, minus 25 degrees Celsius, they are telling you: Come on! Take off you warm shoes and woolen sockets and put on these sandals on your bare skin, YOU PROMISED!!! YOU SIGNED!!! WE'VE GOT YOU!!!" - this is not the way the European Union should behave. It is very mean, and besides if one were to come back to what was in the past then the Indians should repossess the entire territory of the USA. Let me repeat: the situation has changed and status quo ante is no longer valid today.
As to the Polish Constitution itself, don't haste so much to call it an unimportant document, because there are some things written there which I'm sure you will like, like e.g. 60% limit for the government deficit and other valuable, democratic instruments.The Constitution of the Republic of Poland had been accepted by the Nation in a referendum (which lasted only one day - this is important because referendum on the accession to the EU had to last two days, such enormous was the fear that the Poles might boycott this accession) long before Poland could possibly dream of becoming a member of the EU. Then things have changed and the same politicians who wrote this highest legal act in Poland all of a sudden started doing their best to fulfill the EU obligations, and rightly so (back then in 2004), but now, after the collapse of the Spanish economy due to the euro, after the developments in Portugal, Ireland and Greece, you have no moral right to demand that Poland accept the unwanted euro to her own detriment. I am a Pole and I want to use 'zloties' - can you respect this will of mine? Let's respect each other's rights in Europe, ok? You can't deny others their right to think in a different way than you.

That is not the way it works, Poland will join in time or it will face the same situation the UK faces, In or Out.

Your government basically signed a pact with the devil. You do like the money that Poland gets from the EU right? I know your government does, and it has been asking for more as it makes up more than 1% of Poland's GDP.

If you want to save your countries identity, better vote for a government that will leave the project, as the next step is the EU having control over national budgets... that means yours.

There's no problem for me to yield some identity, autonomy, you name it. What I object to is the way the whole crisis is being handled by the omnipowerful Germany and France. These two countries organized all the financial matters in the entire EU in such a way that the rest of Europe suffers and they are faring well, A Franco-Germanic welfare at the expense of the rest of Europe - is this how it should work? Might (in the form of sheer votes) is right? I just don't believe that Germans are workoholics and that the Greeks are lazy by nature - it all boils down to who has a final say in making the decisions about the EU budget. I am not sure about this happiness of EU funds for Poland; who knows, maybe Poland would have been much better off without this huge, huge bureaucracy, for each złoty spent from the Polish budget we "get" a quarter of the euro to finance things which are not necessarily the most important ones, on the other hand, who knows how this same spending would have looked like in Poland if our politicians were given a 'carte blanche' to decide? (as you can see I really try to be honest in my argumentation, it is a great problem because no strategy of coming out of the crisis is showed by the EU leadership, just a temporary relief in the form of helping the Greek banks is not a solution; it is exactly one year ago that our Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski enunciated this problem of the lack of the leadership in the EU on the part of the Germans when he was in Berlin - has anything changed, has any sensible way to solve this crisis been found or even worked on? No, they are constantly talking, talking and talking and things all over the continent go from bad to worse!).
In the long run, of course, a strong, single and common currency in the entire Europe is an absolute necessity, but now they are telling us to squander more and more money just for the sake of squandering them. As a Pole I don't wish to pay for the things which are not going to help.